“The three parables of Luke 15 are treated as one, for introducing them Luke wrote: ‘He spake this parable (not parables) unto them’ (Luk 15:3). Each parable adds to the one that went before it, so that they follow one upon another without specific introduction (Luk 15:8,11). They illustrate three different aspects of one subject: The work of redemption. Consider the different causes of the loss in the three parables. The sheep was lost through its own action; it strayed from the shepherd through curiosity or desire for better pasture. The coin was lost, not through its own fault, but that of the woman who possessed it. The son was lost through deliberately, willfully, and consciously leaving the house of his generous father, and squandering the inheritance granted him. The first represented a one per cent loss of the flock; the second, a ten per cent loss of the woman’s hoard; the third, a fifty per cent loss of the family. These figures are significant. They suggest that whilst comparatively few may stray through curiosity or desire for better pasture, the greater number are lost by the carelessness of others, whilst even more leave through wilful, fleshly desire. Now consider the three mediums of reconciliation in each parable. The shepherd represents the Lord Jesus; the woman, the ecclesia; and the father, Yahweh. The first parable centers attention on the loss, the second on the search, the third on the restoration, so that the dominant verbs throughout are ‘lost, seek, find, and rejoice’. If these principles are kept in mind whilst the parables are studied, many wonderful points of exhortation will be revealed” (SB 10:7:108).

The reason for Christ’s use of the three related parables of Luke 15 is given in Luk 15:2, where the Pharisees are heard to murmur, “This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” Here was a question of “fellowship”; this itinerant preacher, this rabbi who was soliciting their discipleship, was asking them — the “separated ones” — to follow his example in taking to their bosom “sinners” of every sort! It was absolutely unthinkable!

The third of the three parables is usually known as “The Prodigal Son”. It may also be called “The Lost Sons” (plural) because, in actual fact, at the beginning both of the sons were lost. Like the one hundredth sheep, the younger son was lost outside the fold, away from home. But, like the tenth coin, the elder was “lost” inside the house. He never strayed physically from his father, but his mind and his heart were miles away!

The parable of the lost sons introduces personal factors which cannot be found in the two preceding parables. “A sheep might realize it is lost — but it cannot rise to any sense of folly in having strayed” (PM 233).

And a coin is completely without thought or feeling. But both sons are capable of realizing their relative positions in regard to the father; they are both capable of repentance, and of taking the initiative to bridge the gap. Whether the elder brother ever succeeded in aligning himself with the mind of his father is the lingering, unanswered question at the close of the parable. And it was the question which lingered in the air, from that day forward, for every one of the proud Pharisees who heard the story.

There is a great urgency of love and reconciliation in Christ’s picture of the waiting and watching father, as he daily and even hourly stares down the road, looking for the familiar figure. There is not one shred of formality or legality in his reception of his returning son. Even while he is a great way off, his father sees him, and with compassion, runs and falls upon his neck and kisses him (Luk 15:20).

“He did not stand upon his dignity, or remain coldly aloof demanding proof of repentance. He did not force an apology. He loved him and he wanted him back and he was willing to forget the past and hope for the future. He showered every display of affection and attention upon him, in his intense joy at reconciliation” (GVG, Ber 48:158,159).

Here is the divine example for the ecclesial attitude toward any sinning brother who makes the first, faltering steps toward repentance. The members should never question the sincerity of those who seek to return (for they would not like their own sincerity to be questioned), nor should they make the barriers to fellowship more difficult for such than for new converts. The ecclesia should rejoice in that the withdrawal of fellowship collectively administered has by God’s grace achieved its hoped-for outcome: the reclamation of the one who has strayed.

In this consideration of the parable we shall concentrate upon the attitude of the elder son, so that at all costs we will avoid his failings. When the younger brother had returned and been received by the father, the elder “was angry, and would not go in” (Luk 15:28). He chose to absent himself from his brother’s feast with the father. In the spiritual application of the parable, he not only put his repentant brother “out of fellowship” but also all those who were “in fellowship” with his brother! In a “clean sweep” he rejected all who sat down to eat with him. But in drawing such a rigid line between himself and his brother, he accomplished one other thing: he unwittingly placed himself outside the father’s house!

The elder brother rudely voiced his own righteousness in rather extravagant terms: “Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment” (Luk 15:29). Here is the extreme Pharisaical attitude that often goes arm-in-arm with the “touch not, handle not” school of “fellowship”: “I thank thee, Lord, that I am not as other men, especially this miserable sinner.”

“How ungracious the older brother seems in contrast with his father’s love! But it did not seem so to him. He felt quite justified in his self-righteous indignation. He had no qualms at distressing his father, or marring the joy of reconciliation. He could only see one point of view and that was that he had worked hard and faithfully and here was this returned wastrel being shown favors that he had never received” (GVG 159).

How could the elder son claim perfect obedience? It was impossible. And even as he stood there in his bitterness and jealousy, he was at that very moment disobeying the father’s will! May it never be our folly to stand upon our “accomplishments” and blindly overlook, at our very fingertips, the simple work we have left undone: that is, reconciliation with our brethren.

“And yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.” The elder son, just like the younger, had associates outside the family circle, characters that he had not brought to his father’s table. This in itself suggests something less than a perfect obedience. And how true it is, that when we measure ourselves against our brethren, and say secretly, “I am better than he”, we are really only saying, “I was smart enough never to sin openly”! But we have all sinned — of this there can be no doubt. It is fatal to look upon one’s own sins as not being as “serious” as another’s.

The elder contemptuously disclaimed kinship with the younger in Luk 15:30: ‘He may be your son, but he is not my brother’, he seems to be saying. But the father patiently and gently responds, “For this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found” (Luk 15:32). “He is your brother and my son, whether you disown him or not!” It is certainly not without significance that the fatted calf (the special sacrifice of communion typifying Christ) was slain on behalf of the repentant sinner, not the proud “Pharisee”! How tragic it is that by his own hateful words the elder son admits that the “fatted calf” is not for him! He could have shared in it with his brother if only he had swallowed his pride and come into the house!

So we see in the elder brother some rather unlovely characteristics. May they never, even subconsciously, be ours! Here is unbridled jealousy: bitterness at the inclusion of his brother in his own previously exclusive benefits. Here is also greed, the latent fear: ‘He has already thrown away (on harlots, a gratuitous assumption — or was it true?) one-half (or one-third?) of your property, and now he wants mine!’

All that the elder brother had he had received from the father. Should he not go out of his way now to welcome his brother (thus pleasing the father)? There is joy in heaven, with the Father and His angels, when one sinner repents (Luk 15:7,10). What might the Father think of us, if we are angry or jealous or proudly aloof upon an occasion that gives Him joy?

The theme of the Pharisaic attitude toward repentance and reconciliation, which begins with Christ’s three parables in Luk 15, continues through the next two chapters, providing other insights into the mind and character of the brother who was “lost” while still “at home”:

• Luk 16:13: “No servant can serve two masters.” In his scarcely-hid concern for wealth and privilege, the elder son was demonstrating that he was not a single-minded servant of the Father. He was really a clandestine servant of “mammon”, a “hireling” who sought his own reward (Joh 10:12,13), not a son who rejoiced above all else in the work of the Father.

• Luk 16:15: “And he said unto the Pharisees: ‘Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.’ ”

• Luk 17:3-5: “Take heed to yourselves” — Examine yourselves as severely and more so than you examine others. If your brother trespasses, then rebuke him; but always stand ready to forgive him — not just once or twice, but seven times in one day if need be! And the apostles, recognizing that such an attitude requires faith, pray Jesus to increase their faith. It is for us from time to time to exercise this kind of faith — faith that, despite perplexing problems, all things will work together for the good of Christ’s ecclesias; faith that our brethren will by God’s mercy stand firm in the faith despite ever-present failings; faith that God will realize His plan without our constant brooding and worrying, or our presumptuous intervention in matters that do not directly affect us. Can we not develop such faith that God will do His part? This is the faith that pleases God, and without which He cannot be pleased!

• Luk 17:10: “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.’ ” Here is the reason for the command that we should receive repentant sinners, and for the command that we should seek reconciliation with our brethren despite their imperfections: we are ALL unprofitable servants; the most we can possibly do is but our duty. Our Father has for each of us an inheritance infinitely greater than we could ever earn. Let us not be found in the position of appearing to deny that inheritance to others who have, in the last analysis, applied for it upon the same basis as we: not by works — lest any man should boast — but by the unlimited mercy of a loving Father.

If I live in a house of spotless beauty with everything in its place, but have not love, I am a housekeeper, not a homemaker.

If I have time for waxing, polishing, and decorative achievements, but have not love, my children learn cleanliness — not godliness.

Love leaves the dust in search of a child’s laugh. Love smiles at the tiny fingerprints on a newly cleaned window. Love wipes away the tears before it wipes away the spilled milk. Love picks up the child before it picks up the toys. Love is present through the trial. Love reprimands, reproves, and is responsive.

Love crawls with the baby, walks with the toddler, and runs with the child, then stands aside to let the youth walk into adulthood.

Love is the key that opens salvation’s message to a child’s heart.

Before I became a mother, I took glory in my house of perfection. Now I glory in God’s perfection of my child. As a mother, there is much I must teach my child, but the greatest of all is love.

(Anonymous)

“Let the reader understand.”

This parenthetical remark by Matthew urges the reader of the Mount Olivet prophecy to pay special attention to Jesus’ reference to Daniel’s prophecy. The context is:

“So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle” (Mat 24:15-18).

Jesus is clearly emphasizing the need to get out fast, not even stopping to get one’s coat, much less some prized possession. When forewarned disciples perceived that destruction was about to burst upon the province of Judea and everyone in it, they were to flee. Luke’s version of Jesus’ words are:

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written” (Luke 21:20-22).

This added detail points out the city which is doomed to destruction — Jerusalem! God was taking vengeance upon it, as prophesied earlier in Scripture. Where had this been written? In Daniel, certainly, since Jesus explicitly alluded to him. The probable reference is Daniel 11:31, which says:

“Forces from him [the king of the north] shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.”

This verse is part of a lengthy passage (Dan 10:1 — 12:13), of which Daniel was explicitly told by the interpreting angel, “[I] came to make you understand what is to befall your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come” (Dan 10:14).

So Daniel had to be given angelic help to understand events yet future to him and the people of Israel. The exact fulfillment of “the abomination that makes desolate” is not recorded in Scripture. Some Bible students contend that it was fulfilled in 168 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes erected a pagan altar to Zeus on the sacred altar in the temple of Jerusalem. Jesus evidently saw a fulfillment of it subsequent to his prediction around AD 30, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 certainly fits. Yet surely there is another fulfillment to come “in the latter days”, ie, OUR DAYS. How should we understand it?

The point of focus must be Jerusalem. The outworking must involve the people of Israel who live there. And the circumstances must include things that Jesus went on to say in the Matthew and Luke record of the Olivet prophecy:

“For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened” (Mat 24:21,22).

“Alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people; they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:23,24).

Since AD 70, and up until 1967, Jerusalem was “trodden down by the Gentiles”. But now the city is back in the hands of the Jews. This is significant, for it sets the stage for ANOTHER FULFILLMENT of Daniel’s prophecy!

As modern-day readers of the Bible texts quoted so far, we are encouraged to understand what Daniel (and by implication, Jesus) meant. What was the “abomination that makes desolate”? Ezekiel and Jeremiah, both contemporary prophets of Daniel, are a big help here. They make it plain that the abominable practices of the Jewish people made the desolation of their temple, city and land inevitable (see Eze 5:11; 7:20-23; 8:5,6; Jer 7:8-11,30; 27:17; 44:22). To cite but two of these passages:

“…Because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your detestable things and with all your abominations, therefore I will cut you down; my eye will not spare, and I will have no pity” (Eze 5:11).

“The LORD could no longer bear your evil doings and the abominations which you committed; therefore your land has become a desolation and a waste and a curse, without inhabitant” (Jer 44:22).

So for a modern-day fulfillment, we can first expect to see the Israeli people living in such a way as to be abominable before God. Scripture suggests we look at their religious convictions and practices. In Jeremiah’s day, one example of defilement was the hypocritical religion that made mockery of God’s house — it had become a den of robbers (Jer 7:11)! Jesus picked up exactly the same idea when he cast the money-changers out of the temple (Luke 19:46). While there is no temple in Israel today to be defiled, a populace which is reportedly 80% agnostic / atheistic indicates a nation that has turned its back on God. Few try to live according to the principles taught by the prophets. And those Israelis who espouse Judaism are openly hostile to Christianity. It would seem, therefore, that a faithless nation of Israel is positioned for the wrath of God to be poured out upon it one more time.

Note the irony. Because His own people were an abomination to Him, and because they had become no better than the Gentiles whom they hated, God would bring upon them a Gentile abomination to leave their city and land desolate!

But take somber note. Observers of Israel’s predicament and impending destruction must realize that when Israel’s judgment comes, the judgment of the whole world is soon to follow, by the Coming of Christ. “Let the reader understand!”

In 1Co 12 Paul speaks of spiritual gifts — that is, the gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed on some in the first-century ecclesias. These gifts were given with one goal in mind, and no other: the edification of the saints.

In Corinth, apparently, the possessors of these various gifts were flaunting them before their brethren in a disgusting show of pride. The other members of the ecclesia, not so favored, were showing just as much ignorance of the proper use of the gifts, because they coveted them for their own elevation.

To counteract this jealousy and factionalism Paul emphasizes the essential unity of the ecclesia. The ecclesia consists of many members, but they are all parts of the one body of Christ. The individual members possess many gifts (teaching, healing, tongues), but they are all from the one Spirit, and should be used for the benefit of every member equally.

Rather than rivalry, and antagonism, and presumption, the brethren must show love, and care, and modesty, and forbearance toward one another, All are equally partakers of God’s greatest gift: grace and mercy and peace through Christ. Some brethren may have special talents, which of necessity set them apart from their fellows, but these talents must be exercised for the mutual benefit of all.

“There are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’, nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ On the contrary the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable…” (1Co 12:20-22).

It is a sad but common mistake that we nearly all are guilty of. We Chink first of the prominent among us, or the well-educated, or the socially forward, and we rush to greet them, to talk with them, to keep them company. But the ones perhaps who most need a warm greeting or a kind word are the ones we thoughtlessly bypass.

Imitate Jesus

It is the natural tendency at meetings to gather around the leading brethren, the outgoing personalities, or the visiting speakers — while ignoring those shy, quiet ones “around the edges”. But one of the divine characteristics which Christ showed (to the amazement of the proud Pharisees) was his obvious interest in the lower ranks of society, the poor and ill and discouraged. Can we do any better than to imitate our Master?

Paul enumerates the “gifts” of the Spirit (1Co 12:28-30) and agrees that the higher ones, at least, are desirable (v 31). But great gifts (or even talents and abilities bestowed providentially upon some of us today) are not an end in themselves. They are, or should be, the means to an end.

The end is, as we have said already, the upbuilding of the Body of Christ. The means to that end is the “still more excellent way” (v 31) — the way of love. This is the catalyst without which all of our “gifts” or abilities would be useless. Thus Paul continues:

“If I speak in the tongues of men, and (even) of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (1Co 13:1,2).

This is the question: Does a man live for himself or for others?

A man may think of his “service” in the Truth as a series of good works, which take a relatively short time, interspersed with a lot of time to care for his own wants. A few dollars in the collection (to be disbursed in some worthy cause by the properly delegated party, with the least amount of fuss and bother). A practiced “Sunday morning” smile for the struggling widowed sister. A Bible class talk hastily prepared and casually given. Several indifferent daily readings sessions. All this set on the scales over against 40 or 50 or 60 hours of secular work, many hours of “entertainment” or “recreation”, twenty-one meals… Another week in the life of an average “saint”? Is this the proper use of our “talents” in the more excellent way of love?

How best to serve God

God has given us all that we have: the air we breathe, the food we eat, the homes we live in. Is any amount of devotion too much when this is considered? Shouldn’t we, at every waking moment, think how best to serve God?

God is a jealous God. He demands all our love and attention. But because we love God the more, do we love our brethren less? Sometimes it seems that we think so. We stand strong and proud on the principles of obedience to God, and the “purity of the Truth”. And we use these concepts to exalt ourselves above our brethren, while remaining indifferent to their spiritual needs.

Our love for God is different, in this respect, than our love for another person. If we truly love God, we will show our love for Him in practical expressions of love for others. True divine love does not exclude human love; it enhances it.

Verses 4-7 contain a dozen or so characteristics of Scriptural “love”:

“Love is patient”

We have the example of Christ, who patiently taught his disciples and time after time helped them when they stumbled and lost faith. Undoubtedly there were times when he wanted to throw up his hands and abandon the effort altogether, for they were so slow to learn and so bent on maintaining their own natural affections. But he loved them dearly; he loved them despite their inadequacies; he prayed for them; and he persisted until his efforts began to bear fruit. Can we do any less for our brethren?

“Love is kind”

This English word “kind” is one of those pale, sentimental words that just does no justice to the original. We should say, instead, that love is consideration — active, involved concern for the needs of others, even to the detriment of one’s own comfort. I am sure that we all think of ourselves as being “kind”, for we certainly are never (seldom?) “unkind”, are we? Are we?

“If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?” (James 2:15,16).

There are times when a “kind word” is no more than hypocrisy, because it masks a failure to help in any practical way. Have we ever been guilty of such an act, in a benign, “friendly” indifference to the circumstances of others? Then we may have been courteous and civil and pleasant, but we have not been kind, and we have not been loving.

“Love is not jealous”

The divergence of gifts among the Corinthian brethren was a cause of jealousy. Likewise, envy can result today from comparisons between brethren: “Who is the better speaker?” “Why was elected Arranging Brother?” “So-and-so wants to run everything. Who he put him in charge?” The person who can ask such questions does not have at heart the best interests of the whole body.

Jealousy is a terrible disease, and often fatal. It destroys its originator much more quickly than the one at whom it is directed.

“Love is not boastful… not arrogant”

Envy and boasting are quite closely related. They both stem from the same basic problem: love of self rather than love of others. True love does not have to be pushy. It does not need attention. It can afford to wait. Remember what Jesus said of the arrogant Pharisees — who did their works to be seen of men: “They already have their reward.” Let this not be said of us.

“Love is not rude”

There is a right way and a wrong way to do almost anything.

Sometimes a gentle admonition or even a stern rebuke needs to be administered. It is possible to be in the right — even to say the right thing — but to say it in absolutely the wrong way. A criticism may be correct in every particular, but if it is delivered with a superior or proud or overbearing manner — or if it is delivered in front of an audience — it will not achieve a good result. As always, the principle is consideration for others: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In short… love.

“Love does not insist on its own way”

Have you ever participated in a three-legged race? You may be the fastest runner at the picnic, but you’ll wind up sprawled on the grass unless you can adapt yourself to the style of your partner. This principle also holds true in the ecclesia. We are all members of the one body, and we must learn to function as a unit. We are “yoked together” with our brethren in many endeavors; we cannot always choose the way that pleases us most.

Your way of doing things may always be the best, but I can guarantee you that it won’t always be the one chosen by the majority. Then what do you do? Go along or “drop out”? There have been cases of members who have left meetings because of absolutely trivial disagreements, in which they failed to get their own way and just could not bend enough to go along with the others. And they, and sometimes their families, have paid for that stubbornness with twenty or thirty years of self-imposed isolation. There is an extremely illuminating passage, the force of which fairly exploded upon me one day. I had read it dozens of times, but never to much purpose until one day it hit me! Just six words, but a world of exhortation and self-examination:

“For even Christ pleased not himself” (Rom 15:3).

So who are we to think that things should always go our way? Who are we to please ourselves in everything?

“Love is not irritable or resentful”

A person possessing the true love of God has a peace of mind that no other has. In the midst of strife and controversy, he maintains a calm and reasoning mind, and a disposition to peacemaking. He has that same inner serenity that sustained Christ through his great trials.

A person in such a frame of mind cannot be offended by others. He is not provoked to backbiting or vengeance. He relies upon the grace of God, he knows that there is a final judgment that will right all wrongs, and he is not concerned about what man may do to him in the meanwhile. If God is for him, who can be against him?

“Love does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right”

If ever a thought might be coupled with “Let a man examine himself”, surely this is it! Don’t we all do this? Don’t we all listen to gossip and rumors and evil insinuations? Don’t we all — sometimes — derive pleasure from the shortcomings of others, especially those who have previously appeared to be models of rectitude?

We judge ourselves by the standards of others, and when we do this we are glad to see them fall. We tend to think we are lifted up in proportion as our brother is cast down. But when we live by this standard we are completely corrupting Paul’s teachings of the unity of Christ’s body and the dependence of one member upon another. These lofty ideas lose their meaning when cooperation is replaced by competition.

“Love bears all things”

We need go no further than Christ’s example. Christ bore our sins in his body on the tree, and more than that he bore our sorrows that he might be a perfect mediator.

The mind lingers on a picture, perhaps well-known to many. One boy with a younger boy on his back. “He ain’t heavy. He’s my brother!” Strain is obviously there, but he bears his burden gladly. All things are relative, aren’t they? Yes, in more ways than one! We are willing to do for our families what seems intolerable if done for others. Do we sit in the meeting on Sunday morning, and feel that those with whom we break bread are really our family? We write salutations like “Dear Sir” to faceless clerks in faraway cities. For all we know, we could be addressing a computer as “dear”! Are our expressions of “Brother Smith” and “Sister Jones” the same sort of formal, stylized address, or do they express a reality? If a reality, then let us live that family relationship with our brethren. Let us rejoice with them that rejoice, and weep with them that weep. Let us “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2).

“Love hopes all things… endures all things”

The Christian’s life of love is a joyful existence. In the midst of sorrows and pains, he rejoices in the great gifts of his Creator.

His eye is firmly set upon the hope that rises as a mountain before him. There may be a valley to traverse before he reaches that distant peak. But he never takes his eye off that glorious future; and all life’s little annoyances and Inconveniences are seen for what they are — stepping-stones in route to the kingdom. Paul says in another place: “I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound; everywhere and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Phi 4:12,13).

***

All that God has given us… riches, talents, intelligence, health… diminish with the passing of time. Man grows old and dies. Only love remains, as a bridge between this life and the life to come, a bridge over the chasm of eternal nothingness. Every other gift or talent will fail, just as the Holy Spirit gifts finally ceased. The only thing that endures is the character of a man, engraved in the infinite mind of God.

“Greater love hath no man than this — that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

The bridge over that chasm is constructed from the two timbers of a cross. On one is written, “Love God”. And on the other, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” By those two principles he lived and died, and he asks us to do the same — to fill up in ourselves, as best we can, the measure of the perfect man. We have been children, petulant and selfish and impatient. Let us now be men, and put away childish things. We have seen in our mirrors blurred images of the perfect man who is striving to be “born” in us, but one day we will see the man himself face to face — and we will know at once by his look whether or not we have made his love our example. For, lest we ever forget, that is the test by which we shall stand or fall:

“So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but…”

“THE GREATEST OF THESE IS LOVE.”

“Any attempt to systematically wipe out the bad guys leaves the group out of balance and desperately in need of a new villain. This may sound silly, but it does happen. Take for instance a small group of committed Christians. They desire to have a pure fellowship — to root out any evil within their midst. The only blight on their horizon is that one member feels comfortable with [pick your favorite ‘error’ here]…

“After failing to dissuade him, the group expels him from their midst as one who is too loose. In essence they’ve pulled in the lines of moral behavior, but now no one is certain how far. Believe it or not, a new deviant will soon emerge from the hitherto ‘good’ people. His or her OK behavior is now on the fringe and is the subject of condemnation…

“This splintering is typical of groups that want to purify their number. The group gets smaller and tighter but is doomed to always being dissatisfied as long as they insist on allowing no dissent…

“Try to heed the sage advice of Gamaliel. When the Sanhedrin was confronted by the disruptive behavior of the disciples he counseled, ‘My advice to you now is to let these men alone; leave them to themselves. For if this teaching or movement is merely human it will collapse of its own accord. But if it should be from God you cannot defeat them, and you might actually find yourself to be fighting against God!’ Benign neglect was what he suggested. But since the Jewish leaders thought they had a corner on all wisdom, they couldn’t tolerate deviance. And they ended up doing the very thing that Gamaliel warned against — opposing God…

“The alternative to deviance is not attractive either. Who wants to head up a mindless conformity? Sameness has a chilling effect on progress… As hard as this is, we have the comfort of knowing that our Lord lived — and died — with this approach to deviance. He was unable to see a crowd; every person was special. He knew them each by name. If he could put up with a political fanatic (Simon the Zealot), a pair of emotional hotheads nicknamed the Sons of Thunder (James and John), a man who openly questioned his resurrection (Thomas), a corrupt tax collector (Matthew) and a money grabber who betrayed him (Judas), how can we do less? In the long run, it turned out to be a pretty good group” (Em Griffin, “Getting Together”).

Luke’s genealogy is given after the record of the baptism of Jesus, and not as part of the record of his birth, because it reveals the reason for his baptism: his descent, shared with all men, from Adam. Jesus’ baptism was the initial step of obedience by which he would deliver himself and others from the condemnation of Adam. It was necessary that the Savior be himself subject to the same weaknesses and infirmity of the flesh as those whom he sought to save (Heb 2:14,15; 4:15; 5:7,8).

Jesus is shown to be the son of Adam, and the last “Adam” because he was the beginning of a new creation. The first Adam brought only death, but in the last Adam all who believe will have life (1Co 15:22,23).

As with Matthew’s list, the numbers are again important. Counting God (Luk 3:38) and Jesus (Luk 3:23), Luke’s genealogy contains 77 names, and 77 is the number of times we must forgive those who sin against us (Mat 18:22; ct Gen 4:24). All those who have sinned against God and His Son may have forgiveness of sins through Christ. Beginning the genealogy with Adam, there are actually 75 generations. Seventy-five is the number of Jacob’s family that went down into Egypt, and died there (Act 7:14,15); they sig all men, who are “dead in their sins” until Christ their passover is sacrificed that they might be set free.

Women are nearly always excluded from genealogies. [To substantiate: Case of Jair, father of Judah (1Ch 2:22). But his grandfather had married the daughter of Machir, tribe of Manasseh (1Ch 2:21; 7:14). And Jair is called the SON of Manasseh (Num 32:41).]

Author: Moses (date of writing: c 1440-1400 BC).

Period: c 1440-1400 BC.

Title: “Leviticus” is the Latin form of the Greek word meaning “pertaining to the Levites”. The Hebrew title is taken from the first word of the book: “vayyiqra’ ” (“And he [the LORD] called…”).

Having brought His people out of bondage in Egypt, God gave them laws which had two functions: (1) to provide a code of behavior which would enable them to worship Him, and indeed, be His holy people (Lev 20:26), and (2) to enable them to have a practical law to assist in their daily living.

The Hebrew title (“and He called”) may be said to apply to the whole of Israel: as a nation called by God for a special purpose (Exo 19:6). The words also apply to the specific priests, the sons of Levi, whose task it was to oversee the spiritual (and secular) life of the people.

Summary: The third book of the Pentateuch takes its name from one of the twelve sons of Jacob, Levi, whose family was ordained by God to minister to Him as priests. The book covers the laws of the Israelites regarding worship and religious activities, both personal and national, including the Day of Atonement and sacrificial offerings. It contains laws regarding cleanliness, morality, ethics and hygiene that pertained to the people of Israel on a day-to-day basis. Animal sacrifice was introduced as an atonement for the individual and national sins of the people.

In modern terms Leviticus is significant in that it shows the way in which followers of Christ should endeavor to live their lives. Leviticus contains details of the sacrifices and offerings, required to be made by the people in recognizing their complete dependence on God and the necessity always to honor Him. Lev describes sacrifices and offerings to be made for a wide variety of reasons: some as a recognition of sin; some as “free- will” offerings, of voluntary devotion.

The most important offering was made to honor the day of Atonement (Lev 16:1-34), when a lamb without any blemish was offered as a sacrifice to “atone” for the sins of the nation. This pointed forward to Jesus who, as the lamb without blemish, offered himself as a sacrifice once and for all, an atonement for the sins of many (Heb 9:28). Through identifying with Jesus we can obtain the forgiveness which is promised (Mat 26:28).

We are not required, under the new covenant, to offer sacrifices in the way the children of Israel were required. We do need to offer ourselves as a “living sacrifice” (Rom 12:1) to the service of God. Our whole life should the of continual service to Him.

Outline

Lev 1:1 – 7:38 Sacrifices and offerings

• Lev 1:1-17 Burnt offering
• Lev 2:1-16 Meal and fruit offerings
• Lev 3:1-17 Peace offering
• Lev 4:1-35 Sin offering
• Lev 5:1-19 Trespass offering

• Lev 6:1 – 7:38 Further explanations of the law concerning offerings.

Lev 8:1 — 10:20 Consecration of priests Lev 11:1 — 15:33 Laws discerning cleanness and uncleanness

Lev 16:1-34 The Day of Atonement Lev 17:1 — 20:27 Miscellaneous laws Lev 21:1 — 22:33 Responsibilities of the priests Lev 23:1-44 The Feasts

• Lev 23:4-8 Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread

• Lev 23:9-14 The Firstfruits
• Lev 23:15-22 The Feast of Pentecost
• Lev 23:23-32 The Feast of Trumpets
• Lev 23:33-44 The Feast of Tabernacles

Lev 24:1 — 27:34 Further miscellaneous laws including reference to: Lev 25:1-55 The year of the Sabbath and the year of Jubilee

Lev 26:1-13 Promise of blessing Lev 26:14-46 Promise of punishment Lev 27:1-34 Vows and tithes

Luke has the most universal outlook of all the gospels; he portrays Jesus as the perfect man with compassion for all peoples.

Whereas Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy back to Abraham, the father of the Jews (Mat 1:2), Luke traces it back to Adam the father of the human race (Luk 3:38).

Luke is written for the Greeks. He substitutes Greek expressions for nearly all the Jewish expressions (“Amen” is one of the few exceptions), and he seldom refers to OT prophecy.   Luke was a skilled writer, and the literary quality of the Gospel of Luke is thought to be the highest of all four gospels. The literary structure of the Gospel of Luke is constructed primarily around Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and in Jerusalem.   Main Themes

* When He was in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus gave the keynote of His ministry by reading from Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To preach deliverance to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord” (Isa 61:1- 2).

In Luke, Jesus’ life is presented as a commentary on this passage of Scripture:

1. He blesses the poor, the hungry, those who weep, and the excluded (Luk 6:20-23).

2. In one parable He takes the side of a beggar who sits outside the gate of a rich man (Luk 16:19-31); and in another parable He celebrates a tax collector who shies away from the Temple because of his sinfulness (Luk 18:9-14).

3. Jesus reaches out to a widowed mother who had lost her only son (Luk 7:11-17) and to a sinful woman (Luk 7:36-50).

4. In another parable the hero of mercy is a despised Samaritan (Luk 10:25-37); and after a healing, a Samaritan is praised for his gratitude (Luk 17:11-19).

5. The open arms of the Father, as in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luk 15:11-32), await all who return to Him. Jesus’ identification with sinners leads Him to open His arms to them on the cross, where “He was numbered with the transgressors” (Luk 22:37).

* The Return of Christ is one of this Gospel’s main points and makes this gospel one of joy.

* Luke is a gospel of prayer.

• The multitude prays as Zacharias serves at the altar (Luk 1:10)…

• Mary prays at the news of salvation (Luk 1:46-55)…

• Jesus prays at His baptism (Luk 3:21)…

• When He chooses His disciples (Luk 6:12)…

• At Peter’s confession (Luk 9:18)…

• At His transfiguration (Luk 9:29)…

• In the solitude of prayer Jesus takes the first steps of ministry (Luk 5:16)…

• On the Mount of Olives (Luk 22:39-46)…

• He gives His final breath back to God, “Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit” (Luk 23:46).

* There are 10 parables recorded by Luke which are not recorded by the other gospel writers: (1) the good Samaritan (Luk 10:30-37); (2) a friend at midnight (Luk 11:5-13); (3) the barren fig tree (Luk 13:6-9); (4) the lowest room (Luk 14:7-14); (5) counting the cost (Luk 14:28-33); (6) the lost coin (Luk 15:8-10); (7) the prodigal son (Luk 15:11-22); (8) the unjust steward (Luk 16:1-13); (9) the importunate widow (Luk 18:1-8); and (10) the pounds (Luk 19:11-28).

Outline

Luke 1:1-4:	Introduction
Luk 1:5 – 2:52:	The birth and childhood of Jesus
Luk 3:1 – 4:13:	Preparation for the ministry — John the Baptist; Jesus’ baptism; Jesus’ temptation
Luk 4:14 – 9:50:	The ministry in Galilee — Teaching through parables; teaching through healing
Luk 9:51 – 19:40:	The ministry continues on the way to Jerusalem
Luk 19:41 – 21:38:	The ministry in Jerusalem — prophecy
Luk 22:1 – 24:53:	The crucifixion, resurrection and ascension

Among the ancient civilizations there are myths about dragons. The Babylonian creation myth contains a battle between Merodach and a dragon (Tiamet). The destruction of this dragon turns into the creation of the earth and the ascendancy of Merodach.

Another of these myths is about a seven-headed dragon named Lotan or Leviathan. During excavations at a site called Ugarit (modern day Ras-Shamra) there was a tablet found bearing a story concerning “Baal and Anat” which dates back to 1400 BC. In the text there is found this ref to the Leviathan: “Didst thou not smite Leviathan, the swift serpent, even the crooked serpent? Didst thou not break in pieces his seven heads?” (Marston, The Bible Comes Alive, 54).

This creature is probably to be associated with the Canaanite god, Yamm, who is the god of seas and rivers. He does battle with Baal and is destroyed. This battle is thought to be represented by winter storms that subside in the spring time.

This passage is cited — almost verbatim — in Isa 27:1,2. Isaiah must have been familiar with this text and here he is using it for God’s own purpose. Taken in context with Isa 26:21, Yahweh is planning the punishment of the people of the earth, the nations. That leviathan sig the nations (or a nation) is to be deduced from Psa 74:14. Here again the knowledge of the seven-headed dragon myth is revealed because of the mention of leviathan’s heads (plural!). This passage is talking about Egypt. The Psalmist is referring to the greatest political power at that time, Egypt, and likening it to this mythological dragon. God is the true king (v 12) and the One to bring judgments upon the Egyptians. “Leviathan” is given for “food for the creatures” (RSV, NIV) — ref the dead bodies of the Egyptians washed up on the shore as being meat for the animals. This is a common idea in the latter day prophecies which speak about the bodies of the destroyed nations (ie Gog in Eze 39).

“Very remarkably, identical language to Isaiah’s has been found in one of the Ugarit religious tablets: ‘Didst thou not smite Leviathan the swift serpent, even the crooked serpent? Didst thou not break in pieces his seven heads?’ This inscription dates back to 1400 BC; so there is the remarkable phenomenon of an inspired prophet of Jehovah quoting from what was evidently familiar literature of an earlier pagan religion. Presumably in the first instance some Ugaritic priest wrote the words to celebrate an earlier period of Assyrian expansion… which suffered a serious reverse. Now Isaiah picks up the familiar words, rightly attributing this latest mighty Assyrian disaster to the angel of the Lord (Isa 37:36)… One is sorely tempted to read these serpent allusions as a sidelong reference to the brazen serpent, made by Bezaleel and smashed up in the fervor of Hezekiah’s reformation (2Ki 18:4). If Ahaz had encouraged his people to associate that image with the power of the Assyrian overlord, its destruction would be an open flouting by Hezekiah of the authority of the bully of Nineveh, and then it is understandable why Sennacherib made such a vicious onslaught on the tiny state of Judah… Sennacherib was not amused!” (WIsa 279).

There can be no denying the political nature of this symbol in the OT. Is it any wonder that the book of Rev also picks it up as a symbol of paganism (Rev 12:3)? God is using this common idea among the nations to show His superiority over these “no-gods”. Instead of denouncing the concept of “Leviathan” outright he develops it for his own purposes and symbology. There can be no credence given to a literal dragon with seven heads, yet the symbology can be used for the nations.

Even outside of the canon of Scripture this dragon was used to represent political powers: “Of particular interest is the ancient Babylonian myth of a combat between the divine Creator and a great sea monster. This myth finds echoes in a number of passages in the OT where the monster is variously described as the Dragon, Leviathan, Rahab or the Serpent. In Babylonian and Hebrew forms alike it symbolizes the chaotic deep or cosmic ocean (Heb “tehom”, Babylonian “tiamat”) which is regarded as a place of mystery and evil. Elsewhere it is identified with Egypt (cf Psa 87:4) which in several places is described under the figure of a great sea monster (cf Psa 74:13…; Eze 29:3; 32:2). This same monster reappears in apocalyptic form in several writings of various dates. In the Testament of Asher, for example, the writer tells of the coming of the Most High to earth and of his ‘breaking the head of the dragon in the water’ (cf Psa 74:13). There is a tradition that this dragon, described as Behemoth and Leviathan, is to be devoured at the Messianic Banquet by those who remain in the Messianic Age (2 Esdras 6:52; 2 Baruch 29:4). In the Zadokite Fragments the same figure is used to describe ‘the kings of the Gentiles’ (9:19-20), whilst in the Psalms of Solomon the ref is to the Roman general Pompey (2:29), no doubt under the influence of Jer 51:34, where Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon is referred to in similar terms” (DS Russell, Between the Testaments 98,99).

In the OT there are a number of references to Yahweh’s conflict with the dragon and the sea, the dragon sometimes being named as Leviathan or Rahab. The theme is also seen in the NT in the book of Rev. The imagery is sometimes associated with the creation of the world. Sometimes it is historicized, so that the dragon symbolizes a foreign nation such as Egypt, and sometimes the divine conflict is projected into the future as the final, Last Days battle. The background of this mythological imagery was previously believed to be Babylonian, but since the discovery of the Ugaritic texts it has become apparent that the more immediate source of the Biblical allusions is Canaanite mythology (ABD).

A. Creation

A number of poetic OT passages describe a conflict at the creation of the world which pit Yahweh against the dragon and the sea. The clearest instances are in Psa 65:6,7; 74:12-17; 89:9-14; 104:1-9; Job 9:5-14; 26:5-14; 38:8-11. This conflict also seems to form the background of Psa 93:3-4; Job 7:12; 40:15-41:34, while Job 3:8 seems to allude to the reversal of the process of creation.

It has been long assumed that these OT allusions constituted an Israelite appropriation of the Babylonian myth of Marduk’s defeat of the sea monster Tiamat recounted in Enuma Elish, the so-called Babylonian creation epic. This view continues to find support, but the discovery of the Ugaritic mythological texts has shed new light on the question. In addition to a detailed account of Baal’s defeat of the sea-god Yamm, there are allusions to another conflict between Baal or Anat and the sea monster Leviathan (also known as the twisting serpent, the crooked serpent, and/or the dragon, in addition to other monsters). These indicate a Canaanite background for the allusions to Leviathan (Psa 74:14; Job 3:8; 40:25-41:34; Isa 27:1) and the twisting or crooked serpent (Isa 27:1; cf Job 26:13). Since Rahab seems to be another name for Leviathan, this too was presumably a Canaanite dragon name, though it has not yet appeared in any extra-biblical text (See Lesson, Rahab (Egypt)).

It seems likely that the theme of Yahweh’s conflict with the dragon and the sea was a motif in the celebration of Yahweh’s kingship at the Feast of Tabernacles. Just as the kingship of Marduk was associated with his defeat of the sea monster Tiamat in Babylon, and Baal’s kingship was connected with his defeat of the sea-god Yamm at Ugarit, so perhaps Yahweh’s kingship was associated with his victory over the sea. This is explicitly the case in Psa 29; 74; 93. In Babylon the imagery was associated with the Akitu festival, the Babylonian spring New Year festival, and it appears that in Israel this imagery had its setting at the turn of the year — at the feast of Tabernacles. Such a setting is in keeping with the creation context of the theme — the obvious connection between creation and the New Year. Moreover, Psa 65, which has the chaos conflict theme, not only has the creation context (vv 6-7), but is also a harvest hymn (vv 9-13), and the Feast of Tabernacles was a harvest festival. There is strong evidence that Yahweh’s kingship, which was associated with the conflict with the chaos waters, was an important theme at the Feast of Tabernacles (cp Zec 14:16-17; later Jewish tradition associating Yahweh’s kingship and the New Year; the LXX heading associating Psa 29 with Tabernacles; etc).

There are several allusions to Yahweh’s conflict with the dragon and the sea in the book of Job (Job 3:8; 7:12; 9:8,13; 26:12-13; 38:8-11; and 40:15-41:34). There are also references to Rahab (including the helpers of Rahab), Leviathan, Behemoth, the twisting serpent, the dragon, and the sea. In some of the passages the creation context is clear (cf Job 9:8, 13; 26:12-13; 38:8-11) and, in the absence of more plausible settings, the creation context is reasonably assumed in the others. In Job 3:8, when Job laments the day of his birth, he cries, “Let those curse it who curse the day, who are skilled in rousing up Leviathan.” This appears to involve the reversal of the process of creation. Two reasons may be suggested to explain why this imagery is so frequent in Job. First, Wisdom theology is preeminently creation theology, and the dragon/sea conflict passages in Job have a creation context. Secondly, the conflict between the dragon and God provides an appropriate parallel to the theme of Job’s conflict with God (Job 7:12; 9:13-14; 40:15-41:34).

A number of passages in the OT speak of Yahweh controlling the waters at the creation of the world rather than in conflict with them (most importantly Gen 1:2,6-10; but also Psa 33:7-8; Pro 8:24,27-29; Jer 5:22; 31:35). Perhaps these are a demythologization of the conflict myth. It has often been thought that Gen 1 is intended as an argument against the so-called Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish. The Heb word translated “deep” (tehom) in Gen 1:2 is a cognate with Akkadian Tiamat, the name of the chaos monster overcome by Marduk in connection with the creation in Enuma Elish. However, though cognate, there is no reason to believe that the word “tehom” is actually derived from Akkadian Tiamat. Also, although there are some points in common in the order of creation in Gen 1 and Enuma Elish, these are not compelling enough to demand the dependence of one upon the other. Instead, it appears that the same chaos conflict myth ultimately lies behind the account in Gen 1 as well as the poetic passages elsewhere in the OT discussed in this article — ie, that the myth is ultimately Canaanite, not Babylonian. More immediately, it seems likely that Psa 104 is one of the sources behind Genesis 1. The order of creation in Genesis 1 corresponds very closely with the order cited in Psa 104; the psalm even has the word “tehom” in the context of Yahweh’s battle with the sea (v 6), as well as other parallels.

Finally, it should be noted that Psa 29:3,10 and Nah 1:4 seem to speak of Yahweh’s victory over the sea as part of his present lordship over the world of nature.

B. Conflict in Nature

In Job 40-41 Yahweh asks Job if he is able to capture the beasts Behemoth and Leviathan. The most common view is that Behemoth and Leviathan denote respectively the hippopotamus and the crocodile. However, they are probably instead chaos monsters. The description of neither Behemoth nor Leviathan corresponds to any known creature, and certainly not the hippopotamus and crocodile. It seems fundamental to the argument in Job 40-41 that the beasts in question can be captured by God alone; otherwise, Job might have replied that he could have captured them, and then God would lose the argument! The hippopotamus and crocodile were, however, captured in the ANE. Leviathan, moreover, is said to breathe out fire and smoke (Job 40:18-21), strongly suggesting a mythological creature, and Leviathan is elsewhere a mythological sea serpent or dragon in both the Ugaritic texts and the OT, including the book of Job (Job 3:8). Apparently Yahweh’s subduing of Leviathan and Behemoth at creation forms the presupposition of His speech. Job is, in effect, asked if he can play the role of God. Thus God asks Job (Job 41:5), “Will you play with him as with a bird…?”, which must reflect Psa 104:26, which may be read, “There go the ships, and Leviathan whom you (ie Yahweh) formed to play with”, or alternatively, “There go the ships, and Leviathan whom you formed to play in it (ie, the sea).” Leviathan in Psa 104:26 has often been thought to be some creature such as the whale, but it may be a mythical monster.

Similarly, Behemoth is no hippopotamus, for its tail is high and lifted up (Job 40:17), not short and curly, and Behemoth clearly cannot be captured by man (Job 40:24). It is most likely another chaos monster, oxlike in view of its name (lit “great ox”), and also capable of living in the water (Job 40:23). Twice in the Ugaritic Baal myth there is a mythological beast, “El’s calf”, answering to this description, and on both occasions it is mentioned alongside Leviathan (dragon). This is likely to be the prototype of Behemoth.

The point of Yahweh’s speech about Behemoth and Leviathan seems to be that since Job cannot overcome the chaos monsters whom Yahweh has overcome, how much less can he hope to overcome Yahweh in argument. It is therefore appropriate that following this speech Job humbles himself before God.

C. OT History

The dragon imagery in the OT is also used metaphorically to denote earthly powers hostile to Yahweh. In particular, it is applied to Egypt (so Rahab, Isa 30:7; and quite possibly Isa 51:9, cf v 10; Psa 87:4) or Pharaoh (Eze 29:3-5; 32:2-8; reading tannin or “dragon” for MsTx tannim or “jackals”). Since Egypt oppressed the Hebrews prior to the Exodus, and the heart of the Exodus was the deliverance at the Reed Sea, it is understandable how Egypt would be singled out for special designation as this mythical sea monster. The imagery seems to apply to Egypt in connection with the Exodus deliverance in Isa 51:9 (cf v 10), and Psa 77:16-20 likewise uses Exodus imagery, but with no reference to the dragon. The same imagery is also employed in the so-called Song of Moses in Exo 15:1-18 in a transformed sense, namely that the battle is no longer with the sea but at the sea.

The imagery of the chaos waters is also applied to the Assyrians (Isa 17:12-14; cf Isa 8:5-8; Psa 46), and the waters and the dragon are both used to denote the oppressive Babylonians (Hab 3; Jer 51:34,44). See also Psa 46; 48; Joel 3; Zec 12; 14. It seems probable that the motif of nations coming to attack Zion who are then miraculously defeated by Yahweh constitutes a development of the divine conflict with the dragon and the sea.

In Psa 44:19 the MsTx tannim or “jackals” possibly should be emended to tannin or “dragon”, though it is unclear which political entity is meant. It is also unlikely that Psa 68:29 refers to a chaos monster in its allusion to “the beast of the reeds, the herd of bulls with the calves of the peoples.” It more probably uses animal names to denote leaders and warriors (eg, 1 Sam 21:8; Job 24:22; 34:20; Lam 1:15).

D. Last Days

The original conflict with chaos at the creation of the world is also associated with the Last Days, in which a “new creation” is being born. The so-called Isaiah apocalypse reads: “In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the twisting serpent, Leviathan the crooked serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea” (Isa 27:1). This passage depicts Leviathan in terms similar to the Ugaritic Baal myth almost a thousand years earlier: “Because you smote Leviathan the twisting serpent [and] made an end of the crooked serpent…”).

One of the most interesting instances of the influence of the myth of the divine conflict with the dragon and the sea appears in Daniel 7, the chapter about the “one like a son of man.” Not everything in this chapter can be explained from the Canaanite myth, but only the Canaanite myth can adequately explain the combination of the following three factors: (1) in Dan 7:9, God is called “the Ancient of Days” and he has white hair, which is reminiscent of the Canaanite supreme god El, whose stock epithet was “Father of Years” and whose position as an aged deity is also indicated by his gray beard; (2) the “one like the son of man,” who comes with the clouds of heaven and is exalted to kingship by the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:13,14), may be compared with the Canaanite god Baal, who is often called “Rider of the clouds”, and whose rule ultimately depended on El’s authority; and (3) the “one like the son of man” rules after overthrowing the beasts of the sea — which may be compared with Baal, whose kingship resulted from his victory over Yam, the god of the sea. Thus the chaos monster imagery is unique in Dan 7 in that it reflects the underlying Canaanite myth, in which a distinction is still made between the supreme God and the one who is exalted over the sea.

In the present form of the text the “one like a son of man” may denote the angel Michael (cf Dan 12:1). One may compare Rev 12, where Michael defeats the seven-headed dragon. Interestingly, the next chapter, Rev 13 (cf Rev 17:3) presents another creature derived from Leviathan, the seven-headed beast, symbolizing Rome (Rev 13:1-10) as well as another beast, symbolizing the false prophet, who appears to derive from Behemoth (Rev 13:11-18).